Steve: Mr. Plesko

I have read that Metro is looking to expand in the direction of Westport. That seems odd to me. Personally I would rather see an express line that someday would run from Wentzville to Clayton, with stops at 40/270, chesterfield mall, 40/94, and Winghaven. I felt like there was a real missed opportunity for Merto with the hwy 40 re-build project going on. Is this within the realm of possibility someday, or just a pipe dream?

Todd Plesko: Steve:

Your question is excellent and commonly raised by West County and St. Charles residents.

Metro's role in public transportation is to build and operate major transportation investments like Metrolink or Bus Rapid Transit once the regional elected leaders, represented by East West Gateway identify the priority expansion corridor and alignment. A number of MetroLink Extensions into West St. Louis County (Daniel Boone Corridor) were studied in 2000 by the East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWGCOG) through its Transportation Corridor Improvement Group (TCIG). This group consisted of staff from EWGCOG, Metro and MoDOT.

A MetroLink Alignment originating in the City of Clayton (Cross County ML alignment) using the I-64/Hwy 40 corridor to Chesterfield Valley was studied in-depth along with the WestPort MetroLink Alignment. The study group knew of the initial plans to rebuild I-64/hwy 40 and they were taken into consideration as part of the final recommendation.

The I-64/Hwy 40 MetroLink alignment was not selected as the preferred alignment for a number of reasons:

a) Capital costs (construction) of the I-64/Hwy 40 alignment were higher than a WestPort ML alignment, including more structures that had to fit into the I-64/hwy 40 right-of-way..
b) Land acquistion costs for transit stations, park-ride lots, support facilities, walkways, etc were also higher. This alternative would pass through Clayton, Ladue, Frontenac, Creve Ceour, Town & Country, etc - some of the most expensive areas in the St. Louis area.
c) Access to any stations, park-ride lots, etc would be very limited due to their location within the I-64/hwy 40 right-of-way, particularly between I-170 and I-270. These stations are often very passenger unfriendly.
d) Population and land use densities along I-64/Hwy 40 are lower when compared to the WestPort corridor, this is a major factor in considering a ML alignment.
e) Projected ridership on the I-64/hwy 40 ML alignment was lower than the WestPort Corridor. People may say that I-64/hwy 40 is where all the cars are located, but cars alone do not translate into new transit or rail riders. Effective rail needs auto access, pedestrian access, and bus access. Westport offered a greater potential for these three types of access.
f) Access to employment concentrations was higher in the WestPort ML alignment including the Page Industrial areas, than along the I-64/Hwy 40 corridor with the first concentration of employment located near Ballas Road with the two hospital complexs.
g) The WestPort ML alignment had one additional advantage - the possibility of creating better access for residents in the core communities to employment opportunities in near west St. Louis County by extending the WestPort ML alignment east from I-170 along the Terminal Railroad connecting with the existing MetroLink line and to a proposed Northside City light rail extension.

There is one other consideration for constructing any Metrolink alignment. To construct and operate a major new expansion of the system, it is mandatory that new local funds be available to both construct and operate the new line. The Federal govenment will not fund any project unless the local community has identified these financial resources. St. Charles County does not presently contribute any local funds to support the existing Metro system and infact, two referendums were submitted to St. Charles voters during the 1990's and these referendums failed. Had either referendum successed, St. Charles would very likely have operating light rail today.

St.Louis County has expressed a strong interest in expanding Metrolink to I-270 in St. Louis County, (Perhaps to Westport), but it must obtain a significant new source of local funds to compete the for the 50 % Federal Match. More Metrolink may also require that the State of Missouri increase its minimal participation in public transportation at some point in the future.

Most people tend to think about Metrolink relative to their own particular commute need. However, no single extension makes a transit system just like no single highway can effectively serve the travel needs of the region. Should Metrolink be extended to Westport, a fully effective system would require other enhancements in the region in the future. Those expansions could be more Metrolink or even bus rapid transit, which could easily be extended to St Charles County in the I-64 Corridor. Metro expansion into St.Charles could only happen with a formal request from St. Charles County and a commitment to provide the significant funding necessary to operate that service.


Todd

Todd Plesko: Many people have recently asked why Metro is conducting public hearings regarding possible service cuts?

Todd Plesko: Metro projects a $46 million unfunded deficit for the fiscal year that starts July 1, 2009. This shortfall is the result of the loss of several sources of revenue that we have today including the following:

-$10 million in Federal Air Quality Funds used to start up the Shrewsbury line
-$10 million in local St.Louis County 1/2 cent sales tax funds due to a change in the County formula splitting this fund between transit and highways.
+6 million in inflationary expenses
+10 million in Retiree Medical expenses
+10 million in Shrewsbury Bond Principle

If we are unable to find funds to cover these expenses, we will be forced to reduce service. Hearings are required by law when ever a fare increase or service reduction is proposed.

Eric M: I read about your public meetings in the paper and that you're talking about cutting service. I don't understand why you would cut transit service now of all times. I think we need more transit in St. Louis.

Also, I know the county put a propM transit sales tax on their ballot in November. Does this relate to what you're talking about?

Todd Plesko: Eric M:

Metro agrees that we need more transit in the region, not less. Ridership has grown 35 % in the past four years. Even though fuel has dropped some, ridership was up 20 % in July. Without additional funding,Metro will be forced to reduce the system to match the revenue available. While some people believe that Metro has a spending problem, we have actually have a revenue problem that began more than a decade ago when the Federal government stopped funding transit operations. Many regions found ways to replace these funds with either state or local funds. Missouri was not one of those states. Consider the fact that the State of Illinois will provide nearly $100 per capita in St Clair County in FY10, but Missouri will provide less than $1 dollar per capital to support transit in St. Louis City and County. While the City and County do provide local sales tax revenue, this revenue has been growing at less than the rate of inflation. St.Louis County has a referendum on the ballot this November to address the revenue shortfall. Here are a couple of other examples of Taxpayer per capita support in other Cities from the 2006 National Transit Database: St. Louis $66; Denver $127; Portland $145; Pittsburgh $147.